150 Mich. 427 | Mich. | 1907
The plaintiff entered into the employ of defendant when he was past 22 years of age. He worked several weeks in the latter part of 1902. He was then sick for a time. He returned to work about the first of
The declaration claims in substance :
(1) That leaving the cogwheels uncovered was a violation of section 5349, 2 Comp. Laws.
(2) That the place where the punch machine was located was not sufficiently lighted.
(3) That there was not sufficient space about the machine for plaintiff’s work.
(4) That the belt was an old one, which had been frequently mended; and
(5) That plaintiff was not warned as to the danger which he would incur in cleaning the machine.
Counsel insist that where the defendant neglects the statutory duty of safeguarding machines, it cannot be held that the plaintiff assumed the risks attendant upon the absence of safeguards, because the assumption of risks is the result of .the contract of employment, and the master cannot legally contract to violate a statute, and is not in position to assert, as against the servant, the doctrine of assumed risk, even in case where the omission of the statutory duty is known to the servant. Citing Sipes v. Starch Co., 137 Mich. 258.
Counsel for defendant insist upon several defenses, some of which it will not be necessary to consider.
The testimony of plaintiff and a picture of a machine in all its essential parts, the same as the one upon which the injury occurred, shows the machine to be of simple construction. The cogs were plainly visible. Plaintiff knew it would be disastrous for him to come in contact with them. He had worked about the machine about three months, first as. a helper, and for a considerable time just prior to the accident had charge of the machine. The
It is not necessary to discuss the' other questions presented.
Judgment is affirmed.
